From what I see from this article is one man who has political courage and one
that does not. I personally don't care if the gay marriage issue is a
"political certainty" or not. I can't in good conscience support
gay marriage.

I believe that we as a people need to be free to make
our own choices and accept the consequences to those choices. I believe those
who actively practice homosexuality, like any major choice in our life, has
consequences. I do not put homosexuality in the same 'civl rights'
category as race and gender. I do not believe that being black or white, male
and female is the same as who we choose to have sex with.

I also
believe that a traditional family (a Mother and Father) is the most essential
ingredient to the foundation of any civilization. True many heterosexual
marriages fail, but that does not justify marginalizing them or make this an
argument for gay marriage. Traditional marriage is eternal and was established
from the beginning of time. We are fools to think we can simply change it's
definition. We do so at our own peril.

Robert George is correct the fight must go on or religious liberty will cease.
The effort to punish and silence the LDS church for its efforts on Prop 8 is
continuing. Hollywood and billionaire leftists have created documentaries that
have been cruel and slanted.Obama hasGay Marriage as a cornerstone of his
second term. The family will disenengrate at an evenfaster pace if those
supporting marriage give up.

Gov Leavitt, as always, expresses the res;ponsible, thoughtful response to the
question of same-sex ,marriage. We owe respect to all humans. Our gay borthers
and sisters deserve the happiness and fulfillments we desire for ourselves.

Princeton professor Robert P. George is right in saying the family is the
foundation of just about everything good in the country including the economy,
culture, and health, and welfare. Gays have a human right to make choices, right
or wrong, but their same-sex unions cannot arbitrarily be raised to the same
level as traditional marriage. Gays have the right of free choice for their
lifestyles in the same way that Adam and Eve were given the free choice not to
eat of the forbidden tree. Mankind was given the right to free choice, but not
necessarily without price especially when that choice goes against nature
itself. Humans are free to disobey God-given precepts but at their own peril.
Gays choose to live lifestyles contrary to God's command to increase and
multiply and that is the ultimate test. Gay unions can no more be called
marriage anymore than soda and other beverages can be called water. Once flavors
have been added to water, the resulting beverage is no longer water.

The reality is that George has confused government support for religion with
freedom of religion. The only way this gets resolved is to leave the contract to
the government and the sacrament to the churches, instead of combining the two
as we now do. Ironically, that is the only way to truly advance the cause of
freedom of religion in a diverse society.

I would submit that the ultimate outcome in the same-marriage game is the effort
to destroy organized religion. How often have we seen in history a group
attacking one entity when the ultimate prize was something completely different?
Yes, where this is headed is a high-noon showdown with organized religion. The
pathway is logical. With the passage of same-sex marriage, the inevitable focus
of certain elements within that movement will set their sights on the ultimate
prize: challenging the legitimacy of religious organizations that refuse to
sanction same-sex marriage. It makes absolute sense then to attack religions
that will not accept same-sex marriage. The bully club that the federal
government has at its disposal is tax status. As non-profit entities, they will
find themselves in the cross-hairs of the leaders of the current same-sex
movement, who will brand such religions as bigoted and illegal entities. Once
sufficient judicial strength is established, inevitably the organizations'
non-profit tax status will be lost. Too far-fetched, impossible you say? Hardly,
see today's attacks on the BSA. Without doubt, the ultimate prize is not
same sex marriage. It's our religion.

The marriage equality/sexual orientation civil rights groups end goals are not
marriage equality nor sexual orientation civil rights. Their end goal is to
marginalize religion. Their end goal is to destroy religious liberty which was
the founding liberty of our nation. It was liberty #1! Now it will be gone.
Their goal is to change the 4000 year old Judeo-Christian marriage ethic of male
and female. I am surprised at how naive many good intentioned christians are of
the marriage equality/sexual orientation civil rights groups line of "our
same sex marriage doesn't effect your rights". They are using this
line to get in the door and those sucker enough to accept that line at the door
will find out when they get in the house that they will take a sledge hammer to
the house. But by then it will be too late.

Anyone who is concerned about families and children should SUPPORT gay marriage,
not fight it.

More than 100,000 gay couples in the US are *already*
raising children, with or without marriage. These gay-led families won't be
going away. Giving these couples the right to marry will increase the stability
of their households, and help their children. How is that a bad thing?

Many groups of child-development experts -- including the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the
American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, AND
the American Psychological Association -- officially **support** gay
marriage.

The AAP's position statement declares, in part:
“There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the
scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men
or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to
children of heterosexual parents" and "Marriage strengthens families and
benefits child development".

You will not find ANY groups of
child-development experts who oppose gay marriage.

People who think
children are important should ENCOURAGE gay marriages, because marriage
encourages stable families -- and THAT is what helps kids.

The true argument here has really nothing to do with marriage. It has everything
to do with equality. Monetary equality, not human rights equality. At some point
in the past, marriage lost its sanctity and became secular, more of a business
contract between two people. When marriage transformed, local and federal
government butted in, seeing marriage as a taxable event. Marriage is now
nothing more than a government benefits, corporate benefits and IRS
consideration.

Gays. Straights. Forget about it. Who cares anymore.
Everyone just wants benefits, not safe, secure happy families. The real losers
in this political, money driven game are single people. No marriage. No tax
breaks. As long as marriage is a government run and controlled contractual
event, it will be nothing sacred, or important or meaningful.

If
marriage continues to be monitored by the government, marriage will continue to
be a joke; a mockery before God. That is of course if God exists and I'm
not so sure if the majority of humanity really believes one does anymore because
the art and beauty of procreation seems to be in a state of devolution.

Tough issue but the family is the stable unit of society. This means a mother
and a father and the special love of a mother. Love is lacking in a sexual
relationship. Alfred Adler equated sex with power. Selfless love is seen as
giving and not taking. We are a sex obsessed and self fulfilling society. It
would appear that our society is going the way of the great Roman civilization.
The barbarians (translation Germania) overcame and overthrew the vaunted Roman
discipline. The phalanx was replaced by the mob. The National Socialism of Nazi
Germany was one long range result. The Egyptian pharohs evolved into Islam. The
orthodoxy of the czars was obliterated by Communism. Now, we have forces at work
to unite all of these forces together into a one world church-state. Religion is
the target and not the accomodation whether it be that of the pharohs, Mohammed,
Moses, or Christ. All are seen as male dominated and not gay friendly.

The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states' marriage laws must be
based on "the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the
union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the
sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best
guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent
progress in social and political improvement."

Why does the public discourse not discuss the impact of SSM on our civilization?
The omens are clear from the fall of the Roman (and earlier) Empires.

Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over.
As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study
of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost
what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as
society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no
society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has
survived.

Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands
of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology
department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions
that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in
which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of
homosexuality.

Giving same-sex relationships the same special status
and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the
destruction of a bedrock foundation of civilization.

Many churches have no problem with same-sex marriage and are glad to solemnize
them. Yet Mr. George apparently has no qualms about using the power of the
state to infringe on their religious liberty. For him, it seems, liberty is
only for those who agree with him. He will have to resolve this conflict for
his argument to have any merit and be taken seriously.